Assignment of Final Paper

Aristotle wrote three works dealing with ethics: Eudemian Ethics, Great Ethics and Nicomachean

Ethics. The first is influenced by Plato's thinking and the Great Ethics is a summary

of Nicomachean Ethics. So the latter is the most important of the Aristotelian works on ethics.

In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle exposes his thoughts on the good, the virtue, and the happiness.

The first thing Aristotle tells us is that everything has a purpose and, according to that purpose, we

decide whether things are good or bad. So for example, the purpose of a knife is to cut. Therefore,

a 'good' knife will be the one that cuts well and a 'bad' knife that does not cut.

What is the purpose of people? Aristotle says that the purpose of mankind is eudaimonia--

happiness.

So, the purpose of man is to achieve eudaimonia which is a state of serene and permanent

happiness, rather than the momentary exaltation of the senses. In this way, our actions will be good

or bad depending on this ultimate goal. If a person performs an action, this action will be 'good' if

it gives him or her happiness. Living healthily, for example, is a 'good' action because it provides

us with good health which, in the long run, gives us happiness. But what happens when a person

feels happy doing actions that hurt others? Aristotle says that the world places everyone in the

right place. Thus, if a person steals it may be that, for the moment, the robbery will provide him

with happiness. But that person will end up in jail (or running away) and that will not bring him

any happiness, but, on the contrary, it will bring him misfortune. According to Aristotle's ethics,

the real happiness, the permanent, is born of the exercise of good and of virtue.

At this point, Aristotle is separated from Socrates. Socrates assured that the important thing is to

know the good, the virtuous man is the one who differentiates between evil and good. Aristotle,
on the other hand, says that it is not enough to know the good, it is necessary to practice it. To get

to the authentic areté (virtue) it is necessary to practice good deeds.

In Nicomachean Ethics 1.7, Aristotle claims that to discover the human good we must identify the

function of a human being. He argues that the human function is rational activity. Our good is

therefore rational activity performed well, which Aristotle takes to mean in accordance with virtue.

This argument has been criticized at almost every point. This chapter defends Aristotle's argument

from these criticisms. Drawing on the account of form and matter in Aristotle's Metaphysics, it

argues that “function” does not mean purpose but rather a way of functioning how a thing does

what it does. The way human beings do things is by making rational choices. The human good or

happiness is not merely a result of rational choice, but consists in it, because a rational action or

activity is one whose principle expresses the agent's conception of what is worth doing for the sake

of what. Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics is devoted to the topic of human happiness. Yet, although

Aristotle's conception of happiness is central to his whole philosophical project, there is much

controversy surrounding it. Hope May offers a new interpretation of Aristotle's account of

happiness - one which incorporates Aristotle's views about the biological development of human

beings. May argues that the relationship amongst the moral virtues, the intellectual virtues, and

happiness, is best understood through the lens of developmentalism. On this view, happiness

emerges from the cultivation of a number of virtues that are developmentally related. May goes

on to show how contemporary scholarship in psychology, ethical theory and legal philosophy

signals a return to Aristotelian ethics. Specifically, May shows how a theory of motivation known

as Self-Determination Theory and recent research on goal attainment have deep affinities to

Aristotle's ethical theory. May argues that this recent work can ground a contemporary virtue

theory that acknowledges the centrality of autonomy in a way that captures the fundamental tenets
of Aristotle's ethics. The Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle's most important study of personal

morality and the ends of human life, has for many centuries been a widely-read and influential

book. Though written more than 2,000 years ago, it offers the modern reader many valuable

insights into human needs and conduct. Among its most outstanding features are Aristotle's

insistence that there are no known absolute moral standards and that any ethical theory must be

based in part on an understanding of psychology and firmly grounded in the realities of human

nature and daily life. In addition, the book vividly reflects Aristotle's achievements in other areas

of philosophy and is a good example of his analytical method, which must be considered the

ultimate basis of all modern scientific research.

People have not changed significantly in the many years since Aristotle first lectured on ethics at

the Lyceum in Athens. The human types and problems he discusses are familiar to everyone. The

rules of conduct and explanations of virtue and goodness that he proposes can all help modern man

to attain a fuller and more satisfying understanding of his responsibilities as a member of society

and the purpose of his existence. For this alone Aristotle's book is still worth reading.

Main Points of Aristotle's Ethical Philosophy

I. The highest good and the end toward which all human activity is directed is happiness,

which can be defined as continuous contemplation of eternal and universal truth.

II. One attains happiness by a virtuous life and the development of reason and the faculty of

theoretical wisdom. For this one requires sufficient external goods to ensure health,

leisure, and the opportunity for virtuous action.

III. Moral virtue is a relative mean between extremes of excess and deficiency, and in general

the moral life is one of moderation in all things except virtue. No human appetite or desire
 is bad if it is controlled by reason according to a moral principle. Moral virtue is acquired

by a combination of knowledge, habituation, and self-discipline.

IV. Virtuous acts require conscious choice and moral purpose or motivation. Man has personal

moral responsibility for his actions.

V. Moral virtue cannot be achieved abstractly it requires moral action in a social environment.

Ethics and politics are closely related, for politics is the science of creating a society in

which men can live the good life and develop their full potential.

It has been shown that there are two kinds of virtue — intellectual and moral. Intellectual virtue is

the result of learning. Moral virtue, on the other hand, comes about as the result of habit and

practice. This shows that the moral virtues are not implanted in man by nature, for nothing created

by nature can be made to change its direction or tendency by habit, nor are the moral virtues

produced in man against nature. Man is not born either moral or immoral, but he has the capacity

to develop moral virtue and this capacity can only be developed through habituation.

The development of moral excellence is not comparable to the development of other human

capabilities. All men are endowed with certain faculties by nature. The ability to use these faculties

is acquired before they are actually used (e.g., man has the ability to see before he sees, he has the

ability to hear before he hears). The moral virtues, though, are acquired only by exercising them,

just as skill in the arts and crafts is acquired only through use. For example, just as men become

builders by building and harpists by playing the harp, so they become just by performing just

actions and temperate by exercising self-control. This view is corroborated by what can be

observed in any political system. Legislators seek to make good men of their citizens by making
good behavior habitual through good laws. It is success or failure in this area that makes the

difference between a good and a bad constitution.

The same factors that produce any excellence or virtue can also destroy it, and this is also true in

the arts and crafts. For instance, it is only by playing the harp that a man becomes either a

good or bad harpist. If this were not so, there would be no need for teachers and everyone would

be born either a good or a bad craftsman. Likewise, it is only by action and by dealing with other

men that one is able to become either just or unjust, brave or cowardly, temperate or intemperate.

Thus, it is possible to make this generalization — that characteristics develop from corresponding

activities. For this reason, we must be certain that our activities are of the right kind, for any

variation in them will be reflected in our dispositions. This point underscores the importance of

early education, for it makes a great difference whether or not one is inculcated in certain habits

from an early age. Since happiness is an activity of the soul in conformity with perfect virtue, it is

now necessary to determine the nature of this virtue or excellence. This will make it possible for

us to determine more clearly the nature of goodness in regard to both ethics and politics, a matter

of great attention to the statesman, who devotes his most serious attention to his efforts to make

good men of his fellow citizens.

Needless to say, the virtue we must consider is human virtue, for we are seeking after the nature

of human good and human happiness. By human virtue we mean an excellence of the soul, not the

body, for happiness has been defined as an activity of the soul. Clearly then, it is necessary for a

statesman to have some knowledge of the workings of the soul, or psychology. We will limit this

inquiry to the extent required for the proper study of ethics. Some of the doctrines on the soul

stated in our earlier, less technical works on the subject, are adequate for our present purposes. Let

us review them:
 I. The soul consists of two elements, one rational and the other irrational. Whether these are

physically separate, or are separate only abstractly (e.g., as are the concave and convex

portions of a lens) is irrelevant to our present purpose.

II. The irrational element of the soul is divided into two parts. The first is vegetative in nature

and common to all living things, thus it is not relevant to a discussion of human virtue. The

other part is the source from which all appetites and desires spring (i.e., the emotions). This

part, though irrational, bears a special relation to the rational faculties in that it can be made

submissive to the reason and obedient to its dictates.

These distinctions within the soul allow us to make a classification of the virtues, analogous to the

classification of the parts of the soul. Some virtues are called "intellectual" (e.g., wisdom,

intelligence, prudence) and are virtues of the rational faculty of the soul. Other virtues, like

generosity or liberality and temperance or self-control are "moral" virtues, the virtues of character,

and belong to the irrational element of the soul. They are attained when the irrational element is

made to act in accordance with the dictates of the reason. Because it can be made subject to the

reason, this element of the soul may actually be classified as intermediate, not fully rational or

irrational, but this is not of great importance at this point.

Most ancient Greek thought about the nature of human life was governed by two fundamental

assumptions and these are the basis of Aristotle's approach to the study of ethics:

That human life is comprehensible only when conceived of as being directed toward some end or

good, and that it can be interpreted by a categorization of ends and means. In the sense that human

life is thought to contain an ideal element, most Greek moral philosophy, including Aristotle's, is

idealistic. Since Aristotle's moral system is concerned with determining ultimate causes and ends

it can also be considered teleological.

That the end toward which all practical human activity is directed is definable in advance of its

realization. This takes moral knowledge out of the realm of abstraction and speculation, and gives

it great practical importance as a code for personal life and a guide for the organization and

administration of the political state.